More turmoil at Rugby Australia as potential chairman threatens to resign over CEO choice

Children! Children! - comes to mind

So how could they be signed off for 2018?

Fox made their offer before then. RA would only be obligated to give Fox first right of refusal of what they currently have.

Probably by even appearing to have some idea what package they were offering to Fox. Still had not finalised what was happening with SS until Feb 2020 because they wanted to offer a top to bottom package. When did they think of that? I am finding it difficult to piece together a timeline here. RA's website is a vacuum for useful information. Although it turns out the McLennan rumour was true after all.

That is not how it actually works. I am assuming that in the absence of any future revenue contract that RA is unable to pay its future liabilities and possibly may then be in breach of contract if it cannot field 4 SR teams. Both RA Board and the auditors need to be satisfied that RA is a going concern. The Board also need to confirm that RA can pay its debts as and when they fall due. I am not sure that COVID has anything to do with the accounts being unsigned, except to the extent that an Optus contract could have been signed in the interim. While that may be useful, Optus can be assumed to have been prepared to pay well in excess of what the rights are worth, as they are desperate for content. RA has overseen a dramatic fall in the commercial value of Australian rugby in the last five years. Irrespective of who is right or wrong in all of the current disputes and controversies Australian Rugby is going backwards with no sign of the decline slowing.

I doubt not having a contract for 2021 would affect getting the accounts signed. No money from that would have accrued in the financial year subsequent to the accounts in question, so would be irrelevant. It would all be about COVID, which will affect revenue this year when there aren't enough reserves in hand. Even if they had signed, that would still be true.

... and not signing it leaving yourselves unable to sign off your financial statements or a statement of solvency is not negligent?

Not really Jez. As Roger Davis said in December the states were broke if there was not an increase in the broadcast rights. NSW won the competition in 2014 and Australia were runners up in 2015. Fewer games in the next broadcast deal but we expect an increase. Plus Kayo ratings up and Fox down with Kayo basic sub at $15pm. When was Mattiske appointed? I genuinely do not know but it should be well before June 2019. Impossible to find anything on rugby.com.au on this stuff, the original 'good news only' site. The sudden interest in the SS broadcast rights only emerged after Fox went straight to the SS clubs. Up until then RA could not give two hoots that the Sydney clubs had to pay to have the game on TV. Fox offered a great deal, all games live on Kayo. $15 a month for a basic subscription. COVID19? The global economy could have crashed for any reason in 2020. Nothing is certain, but it was a widely held view. Let's take our time covering a massive financial shortfall? Does not rate 0/10 for strategy. I have heard conflicting opinions on Wiggs and am ambivalent about his resignation. However it is laughable to suggest that someone being asked to be chair does not have the right to place conditions on it, and it is somehow outrageous that he did. If he was a dud then it only highlights what a crock the constitution and nominations process is. Panel members are appointed for eight years, keep 'em coming. Any further backward steps and more heads need to roll at board level. I hope Rob Clarke is a good man in a crisis.

yes it is... thanks for the clarification

RA dodged a bullet there.

The only choice probably but that becomes a discussion about negotiating a longer term ala NRL. I would be enormously dubious about what value can be placed on the rights this year.

Football club only so the revenue was probably around $30m. A big chunk of that would be the grant from the NRL. Another chunk would be the licensed club grant, Bulldogs being one of the clubs having the benefit of a significant grant from a very profitable leagues club. Probably also if actual performance was less than planned the licensed club probably tipped in some extra. One of the few financially secure clubs at the time. When Castle started at RA it was said she was bringing marketing nous to build crowds and sponsorship. Do you know what her performance was like at the Bulldogs in that respect?

Agreed it would not be. What I looked for was any reference to another CEO other than Hill who replaced her. But it merely outlines one board and from what I can see one executive group. What I can’t understand is the reporting of the consolidated group if that’s not who the report is for.

Frankly I am dubious about that but will check and get back to you. I assumed she was CEO of the Bulldogs football club and it would not be unusual for Dib to be chairman of both clubs.

Seemingly managing an organisation of that level to maintain an organisation of that level.

What were her achievements there that set her up for success at RA?

So what is your view Campbell? An organisation has significant contractual obligations and financial liabilities. It is insolvent, has no contracted income stream and is probably unlikely to secure one that meets its liabilities. It has an interim chairman who has indicated that he wishes to retire within months and no CEO. One board member says he is prepared to step up into the role of Chairman and take responsibility. Clearly he may have a job or other calls on his time and may not be able to step in to a full-time role and the immediate availability of a CEO who they can trust implicitly is conditional on accepting the Chair role. Just to address TWAS's later statement that he thinks 2 people blocked 8. The SMH reported Rorke, Wilson and Marlowe oppose this. For a start it does become awkward in a board setting if 3 out of 8 vehemently oppose a course of action. It is even more of a concern if McLean also supported them. That would make it 4/4 with McLean having a casting vote. In practical terms this presents a big problem for Wiggs. He is stuck waiting for a CEO who may or may not be appointed for at least three months, and probably longer. He may or may not have a say in the final selection. He is then supposed to step up and be Chairman. That is madness. On what basis should the future be governed from the grave by three directors who have no intention of being around by the end of the year? Re who is leaking. The publication of the email between McLean and Wiggs is unfortunate but could have been either or both. The big question is who leaked the details of Monday's meeting. One side is definitely benefiting by maximising chaos and division. I note Wiggs' comment that he no longer had any respect for the board. I could not glean whether that related to the views held, and expressed, by the board at the meeting, or whether because the details of the dispute were leaked.

Your comment that it may suit V’Landys but not Wiggs...

Where did that come from TWAS? Who said he was going to be? There is no provision for such a position.

Canterbury Bulldogs. Annual Report indicates she was CEO of the entire group, rather than just the NRL club. I could have read this wrong but the financial reports provide the figures for the entire group, and the directors are listed, which made me understand Dib was Chairman of the board, which Castle reported to.